MSIE 7 May Beat Longhorn Out The Gate 733
Quantum Jim writes "InternetNews.com reports that a major upgrade for Microsoft Internet Explorer may be imminent. Apparently in response to the recent mass migration away from MSIE, top Microsoft developers have been soliciting for improvements in the old browser at a web log and at Channel 9, an aggregate journal previously discussed by /.. InternetNews.com speculates that improvements could possibly include support for tabbed browsing, better security, more PNG and CSS compliance, and RSS integration (which Firefox and Opera Mail already support). Go competition!"
Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Google Zeitgeist [google.com], IE 6 hasn't dropped at all and is still massively slaughtering the competition. In fact, Slashdot's own browser statistics show that IE is the majority browser for people accessing this website! Also note that every year is the year of "Linux on the desktop," yet Linux is still at 1% of usage on Zeitgeist.
I don't like IE either, but come on. There is no "recent mass migration."
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla is doing well in all its forms. The Google figures if you look closely, indicate a general increase of Internet Explorer 6 is mostly at the expense of other versions of IE. Mozilla and "Other" are actually slowly gaining.
AND this was before the latest security advisories hit.
AND Netcraft has issued an advisory indicating that banner ads could be used to spread malware.
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the tiny grain of truth somewhere was that the current version of IE actually saw a market share decrease last month instead of an increase.
Really, why do Slashdot story submitters have to have such completely and deliberately inaccurate stories? It *sucks*. I'd happily add a day or whatever on to the time until a story comes out if the eds would just read the linked to article on each story that they actually pass.
On the other hand, the "year of the desktop" claims have a bit more meat to them. Linux has a small desktop market share, and so a doubling over the course of a year doesn't look like all that much.
Also, most of the people talking about the "year of the desktop" are talking about whether the desktop is technically ready. They aren't factoring in transition time (which may well be up to five years -- nobody is going to throw out all their existing, reasonably well systems to install Linux -- they're just going to install Linux when they do their next upgrade).
I goofed! (Score:3, Funny)
I agree, I submitted a bad link. I was referring to the recent loss of MSIE's market share [washingtontimes.com] to Firefox and other alternatives.
Sorry!
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:5, Insightful)
IE 6 hasn't dropped at all and is still massively slaughtering the competition.
It's not slaughtering the competition, it's slaughtering it's ancestors. IE 4/5 are dropping, netscape/mozilla are steadily rising.
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Both my mozilla and opera say they are IE6. Of course so does my IE6, which is never, ever opened. I don't even have a link to it visible on my desktop or start menu.
What really gets me is that Opera and Mozilla have a Google search bar built into it, so they should be going there in very high numbers. What if it only registers hits to the main page?
How many downloads of Opera and mozilla per day? of those...practically no one uses it? Hard to believe.
Re:OT: spreading FUD (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. John Carmack will buy a new Ferrari. One of the Ferrari factory workers will get a bonus and decide to strike out on his own pizza shop. A business man from America will happen upon his shop while on vacation and persuade him to bring his pizza to America and start a new franchise. Enzo Pizza will invade the market with a higher quality, lower price pizza that will enliven competition in the pizza delivery market. A younger gamer playing at a Doom 3 LAN party will order one of these pizzas while saving $1.73 over the pizza he would have bought from Papa Johns.
Everyone wins.
Re:Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:4, Interesting)
They seem to be under the impression that PNG alpha and CSS support are solely in the interests of web developers.
I am no professional when it comes to web design - I'm not going to tailor a site for IE, so if they start to support accepted standards it's purely a bonus for the visitor (or "customer")
Also, if I was a Microsoft customer I would be inclined to find the statement from the article insulting. Back when I was a MS customer I did want things like CSS and PNG support - that's why I used Mozilla. That they assume a zero level of knowledge just because I use their products is probably why I stopped using their products.
Bottom line: Standards support? Don't bet on it - Microsoft didn't get where they are today by supporting open standards, they prefer to invent them.
Re:Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read the feedback on those IE pages you'll see that there is a HUGE demand for the features discussed. Couple that with the fact that IE is losing marketshare and you may find that catering to IE really amounts to painting yourself in a corner.
Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
As a side note, the only reason that I don't use Firefox is that it locks up when I access slashdot (on both home and work PCs, unfortunately). I'd use Mozilla but it just doesn't look/feel like a Windows app. I guess that I'll keep waiting.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
I'm amazed I never thought of this. This would be _far_ less work than messing with CSS2 until it works in IE.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
And it works in IE like any other ActiveX (the webpage is not that clear as you can use the control in any Windows application), we did some tests for a project some months ago.
FireFox (Score:5, Insightful)
CSS compliance and IE (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot in Firefox (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of which, does anyone know (a) why this happens, (b) why it only happens occasionally, and (c) whether anyone is working on fixing it? I would have guessed that Taco and Jamie and so forth use Firefox, but maybe not. [shrug]
Re:Slashdot in Firefox (Score:5, Informative)
It's an error in some min-width computation code in Gecko.
> (b) why it only happens occasionally
Because it's only an error in the incremental reflow code; if the initial layout happens early enough, the problem is not hit.
> (c) whether anyone is working on fixing it?
It's been fixed in trunk Gecko since April. It's not fixed on the stable Firefox branch yet, and probably won't be because the fix leads to problems of its own on some sites.
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not think that word means what you think. (Score:3, Insightful)
Deprecated is correct (Score:3, Informative)
As the W3C says [w3.org]:
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, they have totally cocked it up IMO.
They have gone from TBL's origional HyperCard inspired idea for the WWW (which he admits didn't live up to his vision of an easy to edit & publish system) to promoting an overly complicated XML driven inteface which acts as a high barrier to entry.
Certainly, in 1995 it was a lot easier to learn how create a web page. You can still use the same HTML of course, but few places teach that - they all want to try and teach new users about CSS, XHTML, DHTML, JavaScript and other buzzwords which only serve to overwhelm people.
While that's fine for some people (like me), gone is the notion of a simple to grasp mark up language and editing system. I think that's why blogs are so popular - people can use a third party service that effectively creates their own website for them and allows them to update it easily and the whole process is just so simple (unlike with the the hundreds of naff, user-hostile applications that *claim* to make web design easy).
A very easy to use but powerful scripting language (something not unlike HyperTalk itself springs to mind), the ability to easily use other native interface widgets - like tabs and menus -, as well as some basic drawing tools (line, rectangle, circle and a basic fill tool spring to mind) together with an easy publishing system should have been the goals for HTML & HTTP IMO.
They seem to have no ability to focus clearly on the most important issues and then communicate those thoughts unambigously. Instead they create multiple broken 'transitional' implimentations which confuse people and lead to apathy as far as compliance goes.
IMO we should have a system where - say you are browsing your web site and you spot a spelling mistake on it at http://www.i-like-kibble.org/about.html you should just be able to click an edit button in your browser, be asked to supply a username and password and then have it open webdav://www.i-like-kibble.org/about.html either in a built in editor or it should ask you to select an editor (such as notepad, gedit or even MS Word). When the page is 'saved' in the editor, the changes should be uploaded to the site automatically by the browser. If they had been even remotely competant and argued for this from day one (and hacked up a couple of functional implimentations) we could all have that functionality today.
Instead we have an overcomplicated system focused squarely at technical users that is seeing little 'real world' use, because the vast majority of people just find using systems like Tables with a little CSS far easier and more practicle to manage.
And what really annoys me? CSS wasn't even that well designed. It's got huge gaping holes in functionality. You should be able to align anything by top left, top right, bottom left and bottom right of an object (such as a div) both as an absolute and a percentage. You should also be able to specify on what layer within that said container the object you are positioning should be drawn. Of course that doesn't work in any recent browser, because the developers have been too busy trying to impliment the mixed messages coming out of the W3C, and ensuring backwards compliance, along with supporting 'real world' hacks due to the dominance of IE.
Bit of rant - probably too long and ranty for most people to want to read - but I'm just annoyed that something as influencial as the WWW wasn't better steered by the W3C.
Of course I'm also annoyed at MS for how little they have done in this area (and how much they could have done given their dominance). Full kudos to the Mozilla contributers for giving them some competiton though. Even Windows users deseve features like tabs and autofill[1] *hugs Safari* (even though it's filthy KHTML
[1] Though the first time I saw AutoFill was in Internet Explorer for Mac OS Classic.
Re:FireFox (Score:4, Insightful)
[sarcasm]
Yeah, isn't it amazing what a bunch of grubby basement weirdos can cobble together?
[/sarcasm]
Microsoft is getting their ass kicked big time. Linux on the desktop may not be as friendly to configure as Windows, but the architecture is totally sound.
If it wasn't for Microsoft buying laws, for the screwed up USA patent system, and other things along these lines, there would be little ammo to use to defend against open source developers except TRUE innovation and commitment to the customer.
The W3C isn't that bad! (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning: also a long rant.
Um, the only thing that seems correct is that it used to be a lot easier to become a professional web page author (IMHO). In my experience, most (educational) places want to teach 1995 era web development ... things like massively nested frames, tables, and photoshopped images. Design is an afterthought.
Furthermore, those "buzzwords" aren't really that hard learn at all! XHTML is just a simpler HTML; CSS makes design so much easier; and a little JavaScript is easy as pie (a lot - like any programming language - takes skill). DHTML usually represents methods using JavaScript to change the existing CSS and markup; easy for little cutting-and-pasting. It just seems complicated many developers feel the need to use everything including the kitchen sink. Don't use CSS if you can use templates with PHP or ASP. Don't use JavaScript unless you really need it. HTML 4 still works. Moderation! Moderation! Moderation!
The hard parts about web development are design and consistency. Web browsers in 1995 were not more compliant than now; however, designs were so much simpler that it didn't matter. As I said before, developers nowadays want everything including the kitchen sink. Complex designs take more skill to develop and more testing to work around browser differences. Good design makes it easier to learn to code web sites, but learning to design well is really hard.
You're describing the design goals for Java or the X Window System. However, that's not for what hypertext was meant. The World Wide Web is about transferring documents - not programs. Writing documents with (X)HTML, and CSS is easy. On the other hand, writing complex programs with markup and scrips is hard.
TBL did have that functionality in mind while writing the original web browser: WorldWideWeb [w3.org]. The W3C's proof-of-concept web browser [w3.org] was designed with exactly that feature built-in. WikiWikiWeb [wiki.org] is the popular server version of your vision. The W3C's founders envisioned your suggestion; however, most users simply didn't need or want that functionality. That's one reason why Mosaic and Netscape Navigator were successful despite not having automatic editing capabilities.
Re:The W3C isn't that bad! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, use CSS whenever you need (or want) to say how something's displayed. Use Javascript whenever you need (or want) a page to be dynamic (but don't use it for things that you can accomplish with CSS/HTML!). And yes, as you say, HTML 4 still works. Just make sure your html is semantic.
It was originally designed that way, but now it is quite useful for documents, small programs (like rot13ing text, or something on a similar scale) and web applications (where a user interacts with a program that is actually on the server by means of a web browser and an html interface)
The other stuff you wrote was good, though.
Re:The W3C isn't that bad! (Score:5, Interesting)
*sigh*
Do you know the relevant history behind the development of the WWW? Do you know why web browsers show a little hand with a finger pointing out when you hover over a link even today? It's because of the software the web was modelled after. Hugely influential and revolutionary software by Bill Atkison. Software for creating little 'page' (card) based 'applications'. That was where the initial inspiration came from.
Like many others I'm sure I was creating networked, linkable and editable wiki style 'sites' with it before the WWW, the only major difference was it was with proprietary software. TBL saw HC and was inspired by it. I think it entirely possible he wouldn't have bothered with creating HTML had HC not been proprietary.
Today, web applications are all around us. They are revolutionising the way we live. They are a big deal. The only reason TBL's implementation is not is good at allowing people to create web applications as Bill Atkison's inspirational software is that TBL didn't know how (or have the resources/inclination) to implement many of the relevant features, and they missed the boat on having a half decent scripting language so Netscape assumed dominance with the god awful JavaScript to fill a niche, by then it was too late, we were stuck with a Turkey.
People are spending vast amounts of time and money building web apps. Huge financial resources are put into it each year by corporations building web apps for customers, online stores, B2B and users build web apps just for fun. So much futile effort and man power could be better spent if we just had a decent implementation of a standard for that, but we don't so expensive investment in working around this gaping whole in the current technology is the norm. It's really quite insane, especially when you've experienced a highly equivalent way of doing the same thing that's so much better.
The WWW is not about simply 'sharing documents' (do not listen to your inner hobgoblin who tells you otherwise), it's about sharing information - the exchange of information - and that's a two way process, and for that, you need an interface that facilitates that.
Oh and don't worry - I know how Internet standards bodies like the W3C typically work and I think it's surely painfully obvious to those who still don't get it that its a poor way to make standards. I know many will disagree, but to them I point out the result of the current system - we live in a world of half baked web and network standards the implementations of which are rarely actually compatible.
The sad testiment is that today, proprietary reverse engineered solutions are usually better at providing interoperability that competing platforms are at implementing identically functioning standards based systems!
It's a shameful mess for a technically competent society to be in.
As the bunny icon used to say '"Subvert the dominant paradigm!"
The WWW has alas been crippled by a lack of vision since the W3C's inception. It's too bad there are not more Bill Atkinson's to go round.
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Informative)
I concur entirely. I wrote a website that rendered well in IE, and even passed the W3C validator. When complaints arose over poor rendering in Moz, I had to go out of my way to haxor the code so that it would render
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Funny)
You mean like:
?
On the one hand this is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand it's depressing that MIcrosoft is a big enough monopolist to let the status and security of what they maintain is an integral part of the operating system, namely the browser, to go almost completely to shit before they bestir themselves to even think about fixing it.
Re:On the one hand this is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
A quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
Now this is what I call truely clueless. Typical MS thinking that is the cause of IE's sercurity vulnerabilities and lack of established standards.
Corporations Sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the attitude throughout Microsoft. It's the same reason why the Windows API still sucks after 20 years. The vast majority of customers don't give a damn about any of this stuff because they don't care: no sites will use alpha-transparent PNG unless IE does, so why bother implementing it?
This is the problem with relying on commercial entities for "innovation": they'll only bother when it actually benefits them. Mozilla, on the other hand, implement things purely for the sake of completeness and interest.
Re:Corporations Sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
HOW automobiles (or any other piece of sophisticated technology) actually work will forever remain a mystery to the bulk of the population. However, a manufacturer whose cars had a reputation of being to be easy to break into might hav
Re:Corporations Sucks (Score:4, Informative)
How did this get modded up? Carnot Cycle engines are the most efficient heat-cycle engine there are. Until you come up with something to replace it (ie. a process that generates electricity from fuel directly, that is more efficient than a Carnot Cycle engine), it is the pinnacle. There is and cannot be anything better.
More info here [gsu.edu]
Quote:
Re:A quote: (Score:5, Informative)
I think what Iliad is saying here is that consumers really don't care if their browser supports de facto fringe standards. I wish CSS and PNG support (as well as some stable ECMAScript, etc.) were supported, but that's not the name of the game. As long as MSN and Google and ESPN and Craigslist and Slashdot (insert longer list of highly traffiked web sites here) work in IE as-is, there is no reason for IE to change. And there is no reason for those sites to change unless IE changes. (Here I open myself up to charges that increased usage of other browsers like FireFox and Safari could force those sites to change... that's another discussion)
Until recently, security really wasn't an issue for typical web users. I've had people send me credit card information and passwords over standard email. I've pointed out to other people that the web form with which they're submitting their personal or financial information is not secure. I've always tried to get my friends and family to use other browsers because using IE just isn't safe. In all these cases, I generally get a vacant stare, because unless their credit card number is stolen, or somebody assumes their identity, they don't care. Those millions of users Iliad mentions are part of that vacant-stare category. Sure, if Microsoft had a corporate culture more like Google's, they would have internal pressure to fix these problems and be standards-compliant. But MS only feels the pressure when there are financial reasons for doing so.
Web developers would prefer to code web pages in one cross-platform, cross-browser syntax, but thanks to Microsoft's indifference in the matter, web developers have to endlessly tweak things so it looks OK in IE as well as whatever browsers their target audience may be using. Given that the target audience for most web sites are IE users, and given that proprietors of those commercial web sites are more interested in making money than some philosophical desire to be standards compliant, whatever MSIE supports becomes the standard.
Slashdotters know that universal support for CSS would be good. We also know that PNG is a legally pure image format. But in the world of PHB-controlled e-commerce sites and the typical demographic that visit their sites, PNG and universal CSS come second (or third, or forth,
In any event, it seems that the reason Microsoft is going to release 7.0 before Longhorn is because of security concerns. CSS and PNG aren't necessarily related to that.
Re:A quote: (Score:5, Interesting)
So far I have found the best way to actually get a page to render acoss a large various of MSIE 5.x and 6.x systems is to write the pages to xhtml 1.0 strict and css 1 and just use the subset of css that IE actually supports. The reason for the xhtml 1.0 strict is that then you can run a simple checker on the document and make sure every tag is properly closed. I know with html soup that IE renders a document as that it should not matter but it does in practice. Well formed html just renders more consistently across the range of IE browsers.
It is stuff like this that web designers want everyone to follow the standards. It is a pain in the neck to program for each browser quirk especially when it changes so much between even minor bug fix versions. At least for opera, konqueror, mozilla, safarri, firefox etc I can write xhtml 1.0 strict and CSS2 and have it render nearly identically in all of them with only a few things that can't be used due to bugs. MS not adhering to standards makes sites cost more to write, more to maintain, more to test etc.
Re:A quote: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, Hixie is one of the main Mozilla developers.
Re:A quote: (Score:4, Informative)
And notice that he doesn't say to not use XHTML in that document, he does say that, in his opinion a) it's not worth the trouble at the moment because of the bad support for it in browsers b) don't do it unless you're going to do it correctly (and it's not as easy as many people think it is).
But how do we ever expect to get the browser makers on board if we don't use it? I'm currently using apache's content negotiation to serve out strict XHTML1 as text/html (for IE) or application/xhtml+xml (for non-IE) as described here [w3.org], and it works nicely on both gecko based browsers as well as IE6.
Photocopiers were initially useless, too (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an analogy here to do with Xerox and the photocopier, which I think is quite relevant:
When the photocopier was first developed and Xerox began marketing it to businesses, it took a lot of effort because the bosses couldn't see the point. From a PHB's perspective, there's not a lot of point in having a machine to duplicate documents. After all, whenever a boss wanted a copy of a document they would hand it to the secretary who would re-type it, perhaps with a few sheets of carbon paper.
Xerox eventually sold it to businesses by proposing to simply install the photocopier for free, and only charge for the copies that were made using it. Many more PHB's then accepted it, and it immediately became a fantastic tool for the secretaries who no longer had to struggle through typing and re-typing entire documents just to make identical copies. It was only at this point that its usefulness really became apparent to a lot of bosses, who realised that the availability of a photocopier was letting their staff spend time on other things. Really the end customer (PHB) wasn't interested in the photocopier, but by providing it they made someone else's job much easier which resulted in a better service.
I guess if Microsoft wants to market standards compliant CSS and PNG support, they should be marketing it at the people to whom it'll mean the most. ie. The developers. Those are the people whom it's going to benefit most immediately, after all: not the end customer. If there are enough websites and web applications out there that require IE7 and assuming Microsoft makes it easy to get, it really shouldn't be much of a problem.
Re:A quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
And if people with browsers that didn't support the standards would realize the problem and upgrade, this might work.
What will actually happen is either
Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Interesting)
And, also, the re-rise of that competitor is bringing out the first major feature additions to IE in years...
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Funny)
from The Book of Mozilla, 7:15
Star wars quote.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the mean time, the rest of the population care about learning, communication and entertainment.
I guess what I am getting at is most of us bash Microsoft because they choose usability (not the disability flavor, just that it works) over security. Slashdotters generally have a distaste for Flash even if it is because it is used gratuitously for entertainment. We choose to block ads and popups and some of us IMAGES because we feel it is useless and fluffy even though it is the main source of revenue for many businesses' web endevours. But the thing is, most folks ont he internet care that when their kid goes to PBS Kids [pbskids.org], it works. When they go to their favorite mainstream band's website, it just works. When they go to their bank's website, it just works. When they want to play Yahoo games or take part in fantasy sports, it all just works.
Where Microsoft suceeds is giving the consumer what they WANT. For stuff to work, even if it means that their computer is riddled with spyware and viruses. As long as their credit card number doesn't get swiped or find kiddee pr0n on their computer and everything else works, they are satisfied.
I saw that someone wrote that Opera is a superior browser. While they are correct when using their guidelines, most end users would feel quite the opposite. Opera, at least with older incarnations, has not been a mainstream friendly browser. As an advanced user, I think its great. My mom, my kid and most folks int he public school system I work in think otherwise.
We all know that a lot of user's problems with a computer gone "bad" would disappear without IE 5.5. But of course, many folks wouldn't want to use the web as much without the end user usability IE 5.5 has provided. Quite the double edged sword and frankly, we here at Slashdot are the minority in the internet using world.
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Insightful)
My brother sure as hell cares if some virus wipes out his drive full of baby pictures. My technophobe friend sure as hell cares that she has to be careful with every single attachment she gets because of spam, spyware, and viruses. Or every site she visits. "Give us security" isn't just geeks anymore, its everyone, thus MS's actions. Spyware, spam, and viruses have hit such an all time high that the dinosaur that is MS is forced to do something about it. Especially, when its their browser which enables some pretty silly things like ActiveX, vbs scripting, etc.
I don't know much are safety engineering, but as a car owner I expect my airbag and anti-lock brakes to kick in when needed. Or the locks of the doors to work. If these things don't work then I'm pissed. You don't need to be a mechanic to understand why. Sure, a gear head is better informed than me, but that doesn't mean I don't care about such issues and when these issues become a real problem I demand something be done about them. The gearhead may have thought of it first, but he's really no superior to me as we're both consumers of a product from a company neither of us controls. Be it autos or software.
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure I agree with this. With few exceptions, I rarely meet anyone who is happy with their Windows PC. They are certainly not satisfied, but merely have no alternative. At least in my experience, most people use Windows and its software because they have to, not because they want to, and they're no afraid to express it if asked. The problem, however, is that you can't complain to Microsoft and expect to get any meaningful reaction. You simply have to accept what Microsoft provides you and then deal with it.
The reasons I've encountered frequently involve not knowing about any alternative. If they're aware of something like Linux, they have no idea of how to switch, or have the perception that they're too locked into Windows already to even seriously consider it. Most people have no way to reliably back up their data and simply zap windows without the fear of not being able to get it back. There are some great open source ideas such as Knoppix that may work towards this, but right now at least there's still not a lot of interest or publicity out there.
My own conclusion is that Microsoft isn't successful today because it offers satisfaction or just working. In many cases there are superior alternatives to Microsoft products, even within Windows. It's successful because it's engineered a world of ignorance and despair, in which people aren't confident that they're expert enough to understand anything different from The Microsoft Experience (tm), and don't want to take the risk of falling off.
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:4, Informative)
How is this possible?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Call Me Clueless (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Microsoft is finally making some long over due improvements.
But........
If everyone stops using IE and moves to Mozilla/Opera/whatever, Microsoft's loss in revenue is exactly zero.
If everyone abandons other browsers and uses IE exclusively, Microsoft's increase in revenue is exactly zero.
So what's the point of all this?
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
Having the biggest browser marketshare means you can get more sales of Windowz, and you can spit on standards. The more users of it, the more developers write for it, the more users need Windowz to run it.
So while it doesn't directly translate to direct revenue, it does translate into indirect revenue.
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who uses Internet Explorer is using Windows. If Internet Explorer has the highest market share, they control the de facto standards and can keep customers locked into Internet Explorer and by extension Windows.
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:5, Funny)
blanquita:~ pmohr$ uname -a
Darwin blanquita.local 7.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.4.0: Wed May 12 16:58:24 PDT 2004; root:xnu/xnu-517.7.7.obj~7/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
blanquita:~ pmohr$ ls -l
drwxrwxr-x 3 root admin 102 31 Jul 21:44 Internet Explorer.app
Hmm?
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X no longer ships with IE. Windows is the only platform to now ship with IE.
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. A lot of companies are using the Microsoft server tools (like IIS, SQL Server, Windows Media Server) because they're designed to work with Internet Explorer (and vice-versa). If all of a sudden Mozilla/Opera/whatever had 97% of the browser market, then companies would have to stop serving up web pages that don't render properly in Mozilla/Opera/whatever. And if you're not serving up those pages, when it's time to upgrade your Windows server software, why upgrade? Why not just switch to other open source tools, like Apache?
Additionally, once everything standardizes on a platform-independant browser, like Mozilla, who needs Windows anymore? Okay, granted, a lot of software is still available for Windows, etc., etc., but perhaps for a company that doesn't need Windows-specific applications, they might switch. This scares Microsoft more than anything else.
If everyone abandons other browsers and uses IE exclusively, Microsoft's increase in revenue is exactly zero.
Again, not true (in fact the opposite of what I state above). Since IE has a dominant portion of the browser market, companies are more willing to buy the Microsoft server tools, which brings in money for Microsoft. Also, this leads to client lock-in, since in order to view the Microsoft content, you need a Microsoft client.
-- Joe
not _exactly_ (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I admit that it is not much, b
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
Then microsoft decides to incorporate some non-RFC "features" into IE. Developers know that 90% of the people coming to their websites will have support for this feature, and will use it on the sites they design.
Unfortunately, the particular feature that IE supports is directly tied into Windows, and has no counterpart in Firefox/Opera/etc. Users with browsers different to IE will be unable to view sites using this non-RFC feature, or will have a less than optimal browsing experience on those sites. In order to view these sites correctly, you will need to use IE, which in turn locks you into Windows.
I'm using a hypothetical scenario here, but I believe in some instances this has occured in the past - today I have problems viewing websites designed for IE when I use Firefox, and for quite some time internet banking for unusable except for IE.
Because the browser locks you into the operating system, that is the point of this.
What... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, here we go again, new pages that look like crap in non-IE...
The advantages of monopolys are endless.
--krahd
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I may get flamed for this but I don't care, why complain about MS giving web designers a new tool to use and it gets used in a big way. If the feature is so useful, why can't the standards bodies and the Open Source world take a look at it and adopt it?
It would also act as a way for Mozilla to move into new areas by touting that Mozilla supports all MSIE extensions, plus runs on multiple platforms.
Limiting Mozilla to just the standards could be hurting it's acceptance in the business world...
one of my favorites about IE (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, exactly what is it about marking a site that makes it "favorite"?!? Consider for example doing research on euthanasia (sp?)... would that someone sits down to use your browser and sees that you have five references to sites describing or providing "howto's" for euthansia. Are these really semantically "favorites"? I don't think so. It's really an example of how cute MS gets, but doesn't get the semantics. Netscape, Mozilla, and all of the other browsers got it right when they provided "bookmarks". The metaphor is apt, and not overreaching.
Just my $.02, and probably offtopic.
More than meets the eye, here (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, IE7 won't be a Transformer.
Microsoft does not sell IE. They gain no direct profit from people's use of it, so you have to wonder what their motive is here. Let's assume that "good" and "evil" are subjective and emotive words that have no relevance to this discussion, ok?
If you read Joel Spolsky's API war [joelonsoftware.com] article, some perspective may be gained. Microsoft wishes only to discourage Web developers from moving away from the IE platform. If developers move away, Microsoft no longer has control over web development, and can no longer keep new [w3c.org] technologies [whatwg.org] on the fringe.
This is bad news for a company with plans to move to network applications. If a platform for network applications exists outside of Microsoft's control, it will be much harder to profit from. Thus, Microsoft's interest is served here by retaining that 90%+ browser market share, to prevent the adoption of new technologies not under MS control.
Internet Explorer and .NET (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't really care, as they have their sights set on
"Mass migration"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not, IE has only lost 1% of market share. See:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/12/HNiel
Hardly a mass migration!!!
Re:"Mass migration"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If IE was at 97% and is now at 96%, that's 33% increase in the number of people not using IE.
Marketing won't like this... (Score:4, Funny)
What happend to 'no more standalone IE' (Score:5, Informative)
Guess control of the market is more important then sticking with your promises...
MS caught in their own lies again (Score:5, Insightful)
Cut to a year and change later, Longhorn is taking too long to arrive and people are getting sick/scared enough of all the security deficiencies in IE to actually look for a better browser. Because informed consumers are their worst enemy, Microsoft gets a little nervous that their lock on the browser market might be in jeopardy, and POW! Miracle of miracles, it is suddenly possible to further improve standalone versions of IE on non-Longhorn versions of Windows! Whoda thunk it?
Technically such an improved beast should be called IE 6.5. If they actually do call it 7, it's purely for marketing reasons-- they'll launch some flashy commercials to try to snow people into thinking this is some totally reworked wonder that fixes everything they didn't like about IE 6, when in reality it will just be IE 6 with some bugs fixed and some extra shit grafted on. Too bad their campaign will probably work on the uninformed.
Don't roll over and take this, people! Keep informing your friends/family/clients that there are better browsers out there, and install your alternative browser of choice wherever possible. Don't let them listen to whatever sunshine Microsoft will be blowing up their asses about the "new, improved" IE.
~Philly
If there is any justice (Score:3, Insightful)
Browser stats - where's the proof? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the stats gathering we do on our site, I have yet to see that. Oh sure there's a slight rise but that's not enough to convince marketing etc. Mind you, the 3rd party we use is crap for browser analysis but we're stuck using it because everyone in the industry does.
Are there some reliable browser metrics out there? Your own site stats don't count...
Now is the time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Otherwise, as another poster stated, people will simply wait for MS to level the field with the rest of the browsers and keep using what they have.
Interesting questions, interesting challenges... Are there enough resources? Is there enough people/creativity/motivation/discipline (no bickering, forking and what not) to keep MS at bay? Can the F/OSS community focus on the users and develop widely accepted, non-controversial(*) extensions?
Exciting times - I can hardly wait to see what happens!!
(*) The reason I mention this is because FireFox has this ad blocker... Which is good and all, but at some point someone will point that out as something bad. Even if it still hits the advertiser's servers... Joe Consumer will be under the impression that this is not a "good" browser, developed by "good" people. Remember, chances are Joe Consumer does not care about adverts. And companies may find an excuse to indulge in more yummy FUD :( Fear the media, people...
Re:Now is the time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Make your own browser (Score:5, Informative)
Well, MSDN front page has an article with code to build your own custom web browser [microsoft.com]with tabs and an integrated link to a search engine.
You don't need to buy anything for this. Visual C# express is a free download [microsoft.com]
Before Longhorn, but how long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it any wonder that people are switching away from a browser (and operating system) that can't even release system patches (XPSP2 [zdnet.com.au]?) on time.
What for? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if we wait until Microsoft develops and releases these features in Internet Explorer, then we get to do everything that we .. uh .. already can do today in browsers like Firefox. Thanks, but no thanks, we can get now what they're offering next year.
Microsoft are truly amazing: Can any other IT company consistently generate excitement and buzz amongst their customer base by announcing that they are going to add features that everyone else has had for years already???
Re:What for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick... (Score:4, Insightful)
CSS Positioning Problems Are Solved! (Score:3, Funny)
*duck*
(No flames please, yes I'm kidding. Sort of.)
Microsoft committed? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny, seeing as it could very well be argued that the primary reason Mozilla has been gaining marketshare is because of it's increased security, while IE has clearly needed such security measures for some years and yet has not even had an established team to work on it for that duration of time.
PNGs in IE and Mozilla. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla: <img src="filname.png">
IE: <img src="files/spacer.gif" border="0" style="filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoade
Make your choice...
"new and different" is better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I think improvements are great, as long as Microsoft focuses on becoming more compliant with CSS standards, etc. rather than trying to reinvent the wheel for a competitive edge.
Because "new and different" doesn't always mean "better".
Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this whole article (i.e., Slashdot's article) has become a collection of threads promoting FireFox, Opera, etc., and generally IE-bashing instead of actually discussing the issue at hand. Sure, perhaps the majority of geeks don't use IE, but we're also the people who would use OpenOffice instead of MS Office, Linux instead of Windows, etc. I.e., we're not Microsoft's intended audience.
So, take a moment and think about the article's premise. Will there be a new version of IE before Longhorn? I'd venture to say no. Why? Mainly, a better IE would be a major selling point for Windows (as Safari has become for Mac OS X, e.g., Tiger's Safari RSS [apple.com]). Also, it's probably moved all new development of IE to Longhorn APIs, and doing double-development of new features is a nuisance (as it was for Apple).
In general, developing new features for IE 6 just doesn't make sense from a business, marketing, or technical perspective. Saying a new release of IE "may be imminent" just adds more vapor to the breeze, seemingly endorsing speculation, and creates even more opportunities for MS-bashing. Whereas MS-bashing can be justified, ripping apart products that exist only in your mind is ludicrous.
IE7 (partly) not going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
It will happen, but everything that the article implies won't be included.
IE7 will be the same caliber of upgrade as IE6, but with much more user value (who cares about the stupid image toolbar?). Little to no rendering engine improvments will happen, but most if not all of the UI features (tabs, popup blocker, etc) will. Remember that IE is essentially a very hacked up version of Mosaic, a codebase that is nearly a decade old. I've heard rumors of a Windows XP2 full release (in about a year)... likely any IE7 would accompany it.
But I do suspect that any possible IE upgrade will not be solely driven by user migration. MS has finally realized that they made a mistake in letting IE lag behind in the marketplace... the users are forcing them to admit it.
The people who run Channel9 post vehemently that they can't promise any improved support for anything. Remember that IE is still the sam bowl of spaghetti that it was 3 years ago (plus being stale and moldy). Do we really expect MS to make major rendering changes (so they claim) to IE and support it while developing the Longhorn UI (a rehash of Mozilla's display architecture)? I don't think so. I'm not sure how likely IE7 for Win98 will be.
And of course, don't hold your breath for IE including useful developer tools (DOM inspector, etc)... it never was for developers, and it never will be.
Re:IE7 (partly) not going to happen (Score:4, Informative)
Also, as a developer, you have complete access to the DOM via COM. There are a variety of third party tools that give you this capability. IE was a more developer centric than Netscape was, until the advent of mozilla. The script debugger alone was a thing of beauty. Not to mention some niceties if you were stuck developing an IE only intranet solution (behaviors, etc.).
And XUL isn't so novel as to be claimed as an original thought on behalf of the developers of mozilla. It's a fairly natural advancement of HTML, although, arguably, it could be designed a little more simply. But to say Avalon is a rehash of XUL is pretty dumb.
What I've done... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've also posted an explanation on the desktop entitled Read Me.
I have left IE on the desktop for the diehards, mostly to keep the complaint level down.
What I've found: Some people love it (there are one or two who want Opera) . Others just use what's in front of them. Still others re-arrange and delete the Mozilla icon (which re-appears on reboot).
*Shrug*. We've got some people who do online banking and ebay and whatnot and insist on IE. It's not like the IE fans haven't been warned.
These computers also have OpenOffice. There have been *O* complaints, just questions whether it will open and save Word files. Yes...yes, you can!
Shameless plug: Deep Freeze. Let them screw with the computers to their hearts' content. Power-cycle or soft reboot and it goes back to normal.
--
BMO
Perhaps they'll finally fix... (Score:4, Interesting)
2. While it's a minor thing, how is it that IE can eventually forget every site icon? I mean, really...come on guys....
Yeah, well... (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft can't even do this, then I hope version 8 is an IE uninstaller.
Now THAT is fast (Score:3, Funny)
Giving Alternatives to Others (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, Firefox is giving the best features to both consumers and developers before they're asking for them, not after the fact. This, I think, is an important distinction. Microsoft is only picking up the ball because, after they announced they would no longer be playing the game, they've realized that the browser isn't going away after all and, oh by the way, Firefox is kicking ass all over IE on a number of fronts.
This is not only self-serving and a way of marginalizing mainstream consumer demands -- all while convincing them that they don't really want what they want after all, no, what they really want is what Microsoft happens to be pushing -- but it's cynical, pure and simple.
The great thing about Microsoft, though, is that they make it so easy for you to hate them. They don't apologize, and they never deliver without being asked, but they are constantly telling you what you really want, even though you didn't realize you needed it, whatever "it" happens to be, like their new touted shell that passes around .Net objects. I'm sure we'll all be "needing" that, too.
Re:And the standings are.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft could just use Firefox! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why does MS still care? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I think the idea might come down to trying to keep a brandname product in public view. And remember that even after there recent returning of cash to investors, M$ still has enough money that they can spend a billion dollars on keeping IE up to date purely for marketting reasons.
Re:Why does MS still care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Verisign are making a *hell* of a lot of money of MS' back.
They can safely disable activex as it was dying anyway... they've found a better money spinner now.
Re:Before microsoft steals ideas... (Score:3, Informative)